High anxiety on fed response to new pot laws

The voters have spoken about legalizing marijuana in Colorado and Washington. Now it’s the federal government’s turn — and that might mean the two new referendums are about to go up in legal smoke.

The state ballot measures passed on Election Day creating the world’s most permissive pot laws put the Feds in a bind that could set in motion years of legal wrangling, tax penalties levied against growers or distributors — as well as unclear situations of SWAT-style raids by federal agents despite laxer local authorities.

Text Size

-

+

reset

“The stage is set for a confrontation of massive proportions,” said Asa Hutchinson, the former head of the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Hutchinson, who headed the DEA during George W. Bush’s first term, said he sees only two options for the Obama administration, in the likely event that it doesn’t just ignore the new laws: a lawsuit against both states or enforcement of federal drug laws by federal agents.

The most likely federal response, Hutchinson predicted, would be a lawsuit arguing that federal law trumps any state efforts. The administration should “have the courts decide finally that federal law trumps and that the state law violates the federal law,” he said.

Other former drug enforcers say that approach might work.

“Clearly, there are provisions in both of the initiatives that unambiguously violate federal law,” said Kevin Sabet, former senior adviser at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy in the Obama Administration. “The regulation and taxation, the fact that you can buy marijuana at the store — that’s clearly in violation.”

Sabet said he would be “surprised” if the federal government stood back and allowed both states to move forward in setting up legal, taxable and regulated marijuana industries.

But that doesn’t worry the people behind these unprecedented experiments in state-level legalization.

“A 55 percent vote to end marijuana prohibition is a clear mandate,” said Brian Vicente, an attorney who helped write the Colorado law, citing the vote results. “It sends a message to our [state] officials and to federal officials.”

Even Amsterdam only tolerates marijuana in a handful of cannabis cafes. Wider use or growing the drug itself is illegal, though those provisions are unenforced. The new Colorado and Washington laws go much further: not only do they explicitly authorize citizens to use pot for recreational purposes, they demand state involvement, with provisions for regulating, taxing and licensing marijuana growers and retailers — creating systems where the drug can be sold just like alcohol.

“I think we would expect the Feds to be particularly concerned with growers and distributors, especially commercial sellers,” Sabet predicted.

Politico, the only people who have "high anxiety" right now are the feds. Here in Colorado, Amendment 64 got more votes than Barry did. In this day and age of social media, Barry's thugs will get a rude awakening if/when they decide to come into the state with their blacked-out SUV's and bust some heads. If they don't want to respect state's rights, we'll make them respect state's rights by humiliating them with massive civil disobedience. We aren't going anywhere. That's why they're shaking in their boots. If the local, state, and federal authorities can no longer treat cannabis connoisseurs like criminals, a lot of public union employees are soon going to be out of jobs and they know it. Bring it on. We're waiting for you.

The Federal Appeals court is currently weighing a challenge to the DEA's schedule 1 status for marijuana. If the plaintiffs win, it may be the tipping point to allow decriminalization or full legalization. The Feds are fighting a losing battle. Now it's just a question of how much more damage they're willing to inflict on the populace for a policy that should have been abolished decades ago.

Expect a lawsuit against both states and rightfully so. Voters could just have well voted to stop paying federal taxes and what does anyone think the end result of that action would be?

The federal law is not going to be undermined by the president. Two states have challenged the federal government, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution, and the Americans in 48 other states who uphold the Constitution. The only answer to the challenge is a solid lawsuit and the threat to seize any revenues in Washington and Colorado derived from the sale of pot. And the bill for necessary federal action should be charged directly back to the two states that believe they are going to get away with their challenge.

"The Federal Appeals court is currently weighing a challenge to the DEA's schedule 1 status for marijuana"

If the law concerning marijuana is changed at the federal level, then the issue is settled. However, the controlled substance act is an act of Congress and signed into law. I doubt the Appeals court is going to mess with settled law as the case would then bump to the SC.

The problem with the fed's argument is that it has no moral standing since the feds already pick and choose which laws they're going to enforce. Colorado is absolutely swamped with illegals because the feds refuse to secure our borders and enforce the immigration laws that are on the books. And now they're going to get bent out of shape if somebody wants to puff a joint in the privacy of their own home? Get bent, Barry. You're a hypocrite and everybody knows it.

So the 'values of liberal america' are 'lets not have the government mandate what morals and behaviors our citizens must follow in victimless activities'.

I don't see how you are hurt by things like gay marriage, or someone smoking pot listening to pink floyd. The abortion argument you'll say there's a 'victim', I'd contest that but it's at least an argument. Still, liberal america sounds a lot more free than the alternative, I don't like government telling me what I can and can't do with my body. Strange how conservatives are so ok with that, considering they like 'small limited government' and all.

Shouldn't conservatives also be pro-pot on those same grounds? Or is hypocrisy cool these days?

Obama people said they have bigger fish to fry. They do not know who to handle it but will not put any resource to police it and will leave it to local authorities. Only problem is if federal court forces them.

So the 'values of liberal america' are 'lets not have the government mandate what morals and behaviors our citizens must follow in victimless activities'.

I don't see how you are hurt by things like gay marriage, or someone smoking pot listening to pink floyd. The abortion argument you'll say there's a 'victim', I'd contest that but it's at least an argument. Still, liberal america sounds a lot more free than the alternative, I don't like government telling me what I can and can't do with my body. Strange how conservatives are so ok with that, considering they like 'small limited government' and all.

Shouldn't conservatives also be pro-pot on those same grounds? Or is hypocrisy cool these days?

-----------

I am pro pot and I want your liberal kids to smoke as much as they can. American decided the election and that's what they wanted. Speaking of hypocrisy, I find it hypocritical for people like you to defend the Feds against the will of the people!

The problem with the fed's argument is that it has no moral standing since the feds already pick and choose which laws they're going to enforce. Colorado is absolutely swamped with illegals because the feds refuse to secure our borders and enforce the immigration laws that are on the books. And now they're going to get bent out of shape if somebody wants to puff a joint in the privacy of their own home? Get bent, Barry. You're a hypocrite and everybody knows it.

Just b/c someone is hispanic doesn't mean they are here illegally. *******.

We are entering an era of "the State". Not in the Orwell sense but in the Federalist sense.There may come a time when you preference in lifestyle is reflected in the State in which you chose to live. The secret of a Republic is that the power is not with a centralized Federal but is held by the individual States.